Who pays for all the new immigrants on the southern border?

[minthulf]

On 12/30/2022 at 2:04 PM, hntnhole said:

So we're hearing all kinds of issues relevant to the plight of the new immigrants on the Mexican/Texan border.  I seem to be hearing some complaining about the "cost" of all the immigrants to US taxpayers, blah blah blah, and I have a potential solution.

As I try to do when considering issues of import, I ask myself "if X is true, then why is it true?"  

Without going into the weeds too deeply, there are repressive governments, there are education problems, and there is virtually one religious institution, which has been the case since Spain took the Southern Continent by force several hundred years ago.  Whilst the R.C. Church is well known to reject birth control as against "God's Will", I had assumed this was the case since the Middle Ages, when the Papal Armies needed cannon-fodder for the advancement of R.C. temporal power in Europe.  

But no.  That is not the case.  Since the advent of the R.C. Church (emphasis on Roman), that institution has not taken a firm stance on the issue of abortion or "birth control" until the previous century.  That peculiar event happened less than a century ago - at the hands of Pius XI in 1930*.  Thus, the anti-birth control strictures are less than 100 years old, taken barely an eyeblink ago in Church history.  

So, I think we can legitimately invoice the Vatican - loaded with untold treasures accumulated over the millennia through wars, bloodshed, conquest, all the usual filth - for compensation and support of the unfortunates from the South who were mind-fucked into believing that they simply must bring to term any potential life, every time they fucked.  It's the institution that forced this inhumanity upon these human brothers and sisters, sucked what few coins they could spare out of their pockets, taught them that the fires of hell awaited them if they didn't pony up, the whole Power Trip.  We can legitimately claim wealth and property belonging to the RCC in the US, build residential developments, commercial developments, commodious living/working spaces for these new Americans, and invoice the Roman Catholic Church for all of it.  And we can simply take these thousands and thousands of properties, just as our Caucasian forebears took this continent from the Indigenous.  

I believe that the only group of people that can legitimately comment on accepting/declining/welcoming new arrivals to the shores of this nation are the Indigenous People who lived on the North American Continent for millennia before we Pale Ones invaded, killed them off via genocide, and stole the Continent from them.  To be fair, the new arrivals are far closer in lineage to the indigenous Americans than anyone else is, and the guys are a helluva lot sexier.  

Fortunately, no one anointed me King, right ???🥰

*this was the predecessor of Pious 12, the infamous "Nazi" pope

regarding the question in the title: who pays for them... well they do; the labor they do produces A LOT of value for the USA. Like at the most basic level they act as the backbone for the agricultural business in the usa, without them the crops rot and food becomes scarce.

But in truth they generate vast ammounts of wealth beyond just that; thing is the wealth ends up in private hands, those of the big farm owners and big agrobusiness, and thus is untaxed and out of circulation, confined to interest generating vaults.

as to blaming the vatican, that misses the mark.

1. Firstly, the Roman Catholicism in the USA and in Latin America are fundamentally different beings. like the conceptualization you present is one that's very... well protestant. Like, for example, Biblical Literalism is unheard of in Lat Am (outside of protestant enclaves) and Tradcaths are not a thing (despite the more interwoven role that catholicism plays in the societies of the continent)
2. Secondly: Religion exerts soft power, it does not compel thoughts nor are the people of the global south some easily misled fools, blindly following the words of priests. (which is not to say that the church has not been used politically, to affect public sentiment, but then the institution is more of an instrument than a player) This ignores the divergence of goals and motives within orders of the church; Liberation Theology was (and is) a pretty big thing in Latin America; and it being denounced by Rome has more to do with which Great Power controlled the Vatican in the aftermath of WW2. (also painting it like its some issue wrt excessive latin american fecundity is verging on some weird eugenics shit that... just no)
3. The RC church was not the primary engine or benefactor of Colonization of the americas, it was a tool FOR colonization, but blaming the RC is like blaming the gavel for the sentencing, not the judge. The benefits from colonialism went to the Spanish crown and the HRE, and later to the various other Great Powers that sought to administrate and control the region.
4.  Which brings us to the Monroe Doctrine and what the primary source of instability and violence in Latin America over the past 100+ years.
   It's been the USA. It has continuously helped overthrow democratically elected governments, provided monetary and material support to counterrevolutionaries, crime syndicates, fascist terrorist groups, and isurrectionists in order to preserve its business's interests in the region (cf Dole), or combat the spread of "communism" (cf Chile), or as a part of its war on drugs (which is ironic as all hell because many of the cartels are the direct result of USA intervention, cf the Iran-Contra affair; also the link between the Zetas and the School of the Americas). And on top of that the gun policies of the USA ensure a steady flow southwards of arms.

Blaming the religious institution is nonsensical. Instead one ought turn to either the State that benefits from the crises in Latin America. There are Countries who benefit from having an underclass they can underpay for physical labor, there are Countries whose mining companies are able to move into Lat Am and compell usurous contracts as a result of the relative poverty of the region. There are Countries who field private "security" contractors to the aformentioned companies, benefiting from guvernamental impotence in order to privatize violence. And Countries whose banks demand Austerity from nations that need public spending.

Who pays for the migrants, they do; their home countries do. They pay in the work they do, they pay in the wealth extracted from their homes, and the safety stolen from them. And the USA (or rather the economic and political upper crust of the USA) are the ones who recieve those payments.

As to why Americans won't take those jobs... well for one, they do; prisioners are still American (and also there are a lot of desperate ppl that end up taking those jobs). But the reason the average american wont is because the job is physically devastating and almost entirely unregulated or even flagrantly violating to their legal rights (which is to say, the farmowners can't treat citizens in the way they treat migrant labor, citizens can fight back)

[guy4funwaco]

On 12/30/2022 at 2:04 PM, hntnhole said:

So we're hearing all kinds of issues relevant to the plight of the new immigrants on the Mexican/Texan border.  I seem to be hearing some complaining about the "cost" of all the immigrants to US taxpayers, blah blah blah, and I have a potential solution.

As I try to do when considering issues of import, I ask myself "if X is true, then why is it true?"  

Without going into the weeds too deeply, there are repressive governments, there are education problems, and there is virtually one religious institution, which has been the case since Spain took the Southern Continent by force several hundred years ago.  Whilst the R.C. Church is well known to reject birth control as against "God's Will", I had assumed this was the case since the Middle Ages, when the Papal Armies needed cannon-fodder for the advancement of R.C. temporal power in Europe.  

But no.  That is not the case.  Since the advent of the R.C. Church (emphasis on Roman), that institution has not taken a firm stance on the issue of abortion or "birth control" until the previous century.  That peculiar event happened less than a century ago - at the hands of Pius XI in 1930*.  Thus, the anti-birth control strictures are less than 100 years old, taken barely an eyeblink ago in Church history.  

So, I think we can legitimately invoice the Vatican - loaded with untold treasures accumulated over the millennia through wars, bloodshed, conquest, all the usual filth - for compensation and support of the unfortunates from the South who were mind-fucked into believing that they simply must bring to term any potential life, every time they fucked.  It's the institution that forced this inhumanity upon these human brothers and sisters, sucked what few coins they could spare out of their pockets, taught them that the fires of hell awaited them if they didn't pony up, the whole Power Trip.  We can legitimately claim wealth and property belonging to the RCC in the US, build residential developments, commercial developments, commodious living/working spaces for these new Americans, and invoice the Roman Catholic Church for all of it.  And we can simply take these thousands and thousands of properties, just as our Caucasian forebears took this continent from the Indigenous.  

I believe that the only group of people that can legitimately comment on accepting/declining/welcoming new arrivals to the shores of this nation are the Indigenous People who lived on the North American Continent for millennia before we Pale Ones invaded, killed them off via genocide, and stole the Continent from them.  To be fair, the new arrivals are far closer in lineage to the indigenous Americans than anyone else is, and the guys are a helluva lot sexier.  

Fortunately, no one anointed me King, right ???🥰

*this was the predecessor of Pious 12, the infamous "Nazi" pope

First of all WTF. We can virtue signal all day long use some wacky logic to blame whomever we want but that doesn't answer the question or come close to helping in any way. As someone who lives on the border state there are things you should know. Texas pays for alot of it, this is why here recently you have heard about busing them north. And before we start that shit show, no they are not cities that are randomly picked for political reasons they are cities who independently identified themselves as sanctuary cities. One of the biggest issues is healthcare. Hospitals cannot refuse to treat life threatening illnesses. In Texas we are fortunate to have many Catholic hospitals remaining. These institutions typically go above the life threatening requirements and treat as many people as the resources allow. 

But let's get to the crux of the issue, politicians. The largest risk at the border is not asylum seekers as you have been told. No they are a tool used to cause confusion and overtax the border guard so black market items can be brought in easier. I mean common where did you think the fyntenol was coming from? Once this is understood actions like loosening gun restrictions make more sense, not that I agree with DeSantis on much. The point is until the border is secure it's pointless to presue any form of gun control. Now my question is since we know this and the politicians know this why are we being gaslit over the immigrants? The sad and simple answer is they are making money off of the illegal black market. I would use the age old tactic of observing and seeing who is the loudest. I'm not going to say anything, but you should question why AOC a senitor from New York has such a driving interest in what happens in Texas, almost more interest than our own representative. 

[BlackDude]

I don’t understand why we are referring to these people as immigrants. They did not go through an immigration process.

 

[Topthat]

56 minutes ago, BlackDude said:

I don’t understand why we are referring to these people as immigrants. They did not go through an immigration process.

 

Lots of stupid crap here- really kills a hardon.  How did you get here?  How did 2/3 of the people of this country get here?  Unless you are a member of one of the nations of native peoples, answer it for yourself. In silence. 

[hntnhole]

Thank you, minthulf & gay4funwaco !!!

It's been almost 6 months since I stirred that pot, and a number of the responses were interesting and reasonable.  I was hoping for some more in-depth responses, and here they are. 

You two, however, gave us well-reasoned, well-written, comprehensive responses that many in the US could do well to bookmark and read again and again.  I hope both of you write on other blogs, thus sharing your insights with a wider audience.

Many thanks !!! 

Edited May 25, 2023 by hntnhole

[BlackDude]

2 hours ago, Jandrosgape said:

Lots of stupid crap here- really kills a hardon.  How did you get here?  How did 2/3 of the people of this country get here?  Unless you are a member of one of the nations of native peoples, answer it for yourself. In silence. 

I did not immigrate here. There was no United States when my people came.  You cannot immigrate to a country before it is established. 

Everyone in the US is not an immigrant. That logic is ridiculous. Are the Arabs in Egypt immigrants because they weren’t the original inhabitants? Are the Afro Latinos who don’t have Native American Roots immigrants?  
 

 

Edited May 25, 2023 by BlackDude

[Topthat]

37 minutes ago, BlackDude said:

I did not immigrate here. There was no United States when my people came.  You cannot immigrate to a country before it is established. 

Everyone in the US is not an immigrant. That logic is ridiculous. Are the Arabs in Egypt immigrants because they weren’t the original inhabitants? Are the Afro Latinos who don’t have Native American Roots immigrants?  
 

 

That is a  untrue response to a racist statement that you got called out on.   As I said- hardon killer.   

[BlackDude]

1 hour ago, Jandrosgape said:

That is a  untrue response to a racist statement that you got called out on.   As I said- hardon killer.   

Actually, a factual statement, and nothing racial about what I said. 
 

I simply called out the fallacy and deliberate  dishonesty  of comparing those at the border to legal immigrants and citizens. 
 

 

Edited May 25, 2023 by BlackDude

[minthulf]

12 hours ago, BlackDude said:

I don’t understand why we are referring to these people as immigrants. They did not go through an immigration process.

6 hours ago, BlackDude said:

... simply called out the fallacy and deliberate  dishonesty  of comparing those at the border to legal immigrants...

So why the word "immigrant"

Because that is what they are, they are going to (migrating) into (im) the point of reference (the USA)

You show an implicit understanding of this by using the adjective "legal", differentiating on ways migration can be framed.
 

Now, regarding legality; well firstly and obviously Legal is not synonymous with Correct, or Just, or Moral. Legality is an empirical fact, morality is more metaphysical (though most people care more for the latter than for the former, as we tend to understand that laws, even moreso than history, are written by -and for- the powerful)

That said, many of these migrants are in fact lawfully seeking entry into the USA by right of refuge; they are refugees from countries that the USA has played a significant role in destabilizing. The resistance to admitting them (and even outright turning away) by the governments of the usa is an illegal act (though no power exists that can compel the governments to follow their own laws). One can tell that they prefer entering lawfully because they are making something of a spectacle of the crossing; those seeking entry through illegal means tend to be quiet about it; these are people demanding justice and asylum.

8 hours ago, BlackDude said:

I did not immigrate here. There was no United States when my people came.  You cannot immigrate to a country before it is established... Are the Arabs in Egypt immigrants because they weren’t the original inhabitants? Are the Afro Latinos who don’t have Native American Roots immigrants?  
 

 

Further "immigration process" is a hazy term. I mean in one way migration is in itself the process; the moving is the process. One emigrates from a country and simmultaneously immigrates into another.

Now if one is talking about legal processes...

well for one, on what legal basis is the USA constituted; its independence from the United Kingdom was not attained through legal means; it was retroactively granted legality as a result of violence; but as Civil Wars the world throughout show, this legality does not exist a priori. Similarly the original settlement of the territory by Europeans was not lawful by the laws of the people living in the territory itself, and oftentimes nor by the laws of the settlers themselves (cf the many treaties the USA broke during its expansions). The state itself is thus illegal, its laws backed only by the power of the state to do violence.

so, taking a strictly legalistic perspective might not be the most honest way to go about things; especially if many of these people are seeking to go through the process legally but are being kept from it by the government,

As to Arabic presence in Egypt; Afro-Americans; and immigrating into a country before establishment;

Yes you are right, folk cannot immigrate into a state before the state exists; country is a bit more ambiguous because country tends to refer to the intersection of territory (which exists before the establishment of the state) and state (the social structure brought into being for the administration of the land and people).  Keeping this distinction between land and state is important and why you aren't calling citizens "natives" though it  (and relatives terms such as autochthon) is the technical antonym for "immigrant"; you call them citizens, because you understand there is a difference between those that got here and forced other people out, and the people that were forced oute... which is a form of immigration though does feel severe enough that we tend not to talk about it as merely immigration but rather:

Colonization.

Honestly talking of european presence in this continent in terms of "immigration" tends to minimize the brutality of the process.

which kinda touches on the whataboutism that is Arabs in Egypt, yeah there was a colonization process, though the process also involved a lot of standard migration, and overal is spread out over enough time and changes of state that... well its not honestly a very productive talk to have wrt the situation in the USA-Mexico Border

as to immigration of Africans into the continent; yeah we tend not to call kidnapping or the coerced movement of people "immigration"; it technically is but we tend to refer to it as "trafficking" or "kidnapping" and typically seek to redress the harm caused. But in this case "migrant" is not incorrent, though "coloniser" would be (incorrect that is).

 

TLDR: we are not a law forum, heck a lot of us are scofflaws, the conversation is more about hypotheticals and ideals rather than actionable policy.

Also the state is a fiction, hierarchies of power ought be abolished, landback, etc...

[BlackDude]

10 hours ago, minthulf said:

So why the word "immigrant"

Because that is what they are, they are going to (migrating) into (im) the point of reference (the USA)

You show an implicit understanding of this by using the adjective "legal", differentiating on ways migration can be framed.
 

Now, regarding legality; well firstly and obviously Legal is not synonymous with Correct, or Just, or Moral. Legality is an empirical fact, morality is more metaphysical (though most people care more for the latter than for the former, as we tend to understand that laws, even moreso than history, are written by -and for- the powerful)

That said, many of these migrants are in fact lawfully seeking entry into the USA by right of refuge; they are refugees from countries that the USA has played a significant role in destabilizing. The resistance to admitting them (and even outright turning away) by the governments of the usa is an illegal act (though no power exists that can compel the governments to follow their own laws). One can tell that they prefer entering lawfully because they are making something of a spectacle of the crossing; those seeking entry through illegal means tend to be quiet about it; these are people demanding justice and asylum.

Further "immigration process" is a hazy term. I mean in one way migration is in itself the process; the moving is the process. One emigrates from a country and simmultaneously immigrates into another.

Now if one is talking about legal processes...

well for one, on what legal basis is the USA constituted; its independence from the United Kingdom was not attained through legal means; it was retroactively granted legality as a result of violence; but as Civil Wars the world throughout show, this legality does not exist a priori. Similarly the original settlement of the territory by Europeans was not lawful by the laws of the people living in the territory itself, and oftentimes nor by the laws of the settlers themselves (cf the many treaties the USA broke during its expansions). The state itself is thus illegal, its laws backed only by the power of the state to do violence.

so, taking a strictly legalistic perspective might not be the most honest way to go about things; especially if many of these people are seeking to go through the process legally but are being kept from it by the government,

As to Arabic presence in Egypt; Afro-Americans; and immigrating into a country before establishment;

Yes you are right, folk cannot immigrate into a state before the state exists; country is a bit more ambiguous because country tends to refer to the intersection of territory (which exists before the establishment of the state) and state (the social structure brought into being for the administration of the land and people).  Keeping this distinction between land and state is important and why you aren't calling citizens "natives" though it  (and relatives terms such as autochthon) is the technical antonym for "immigrant"; you call them citizens, because you understand there is a difference between those that got here and forced other people out, and the people that were forced oute... which is a form of immigration though does feel severe enough that we tend not to talk about it as merely immigration but rather:

Colonization.

Honestly talking of european presence in this continent in terms of "immigration" tends to minimize the brutality of the process.

which kinda touches on the whataboutism that is Arabs in Egypt, yeah there was a colonization process, though the process also involved a lot of standard migration, and overal is spread out over enough time and changes of state that... well its not honestly a very productive talk to have wrt the situation in the USA-Mexico Border

as to immigration of Africans into the continent; yeah we tend not to call kidnapping or the coerced movement of people "immigration"; it technically is but we tend to refer to it as "trafficking" or "kidnapping" and typically seek to redress the harm caused. But in this case "migrant" is not incorrent, though "coloniser" would be (incorrect that is).

 

TLDR: we are not a law forum, heck a lot of us are scofflaws, the conversation is more about hypotheticals and ideals rather than actionable policy.

Also the state is a fiction, hierarchies of power ought be abolished, landback, etc...

Words have legal meanings, and social meanings. The term immigration is being used to cause social confusion, to make the people at the border comparative to legal immigrants. The logic that everyone is an immigrant except native people is a bad faith argument, and ignore the fact many of those people made deals to GIVE their land away. 
 

As to your point about the USA controlling  their governments, the people of those countries also share responsibility. These people are coming here for economic reasons, not political reasons. Which is fine, I believe they need to go through the process and US citizens should not have to pay for the free benefits of non citizens.

[viking8x6]

Well! I've only read the OP's beginning to the thread so far, and I have to say that is not where I was expecting that post to go after reading the title. Interesting perspective, and that's an understatement.

On 12/30/2022 at 3:04 PM, hntnhole said:

I seem to be hearing some complaining about the "cost" of all the immigrants to US taxpayers, blah blah blah, and I have a potential solution.

As I try to do when considering issues of import, I ask myself "if X is true, then why is it true?"  

My contribution: In these days of Faux News and social media disinformation campaigns, I prefer first to ask the question:

"Is X true?"

I have yet to see anything much in the way of hard evidence that immigrants (or even immigrants from Latin America specifically) are a net cost to US taxpayers.

[viking8x6]

On 1/7/2023 at 4:39 PM, BootmanLA said:

Meanwhile, plenty of rich people pay little or no social security taxes because they structure their income such that it's not "earned" income. Remember that interest earnings, dividends, capital gains, and so forth aren't taxed for social security purposes at all, because they're not "earned".

I'm dubious about this logic.  My understanding is a bit different: If people are actually "rich" (i.e. upper middle class or higher), while a large proportion of their income is not "earned" (and therefore incurs no social security tax), they usually have a fairly significant amount of "earned" income, on which they do pay social security tax. However, the amount of "earned" income that is subject to social security tax is capped at a fairly small number (in the low $100k's per year), so the capped amount of social security tax they pay on their total income (or even their "earned" income) becomes a very small percentage indeed.

[Rillion]

3 hours ago, viking8x6 said:

I'm dubious about this logic.  My understanding is a bit different: If people are actually "rich" (i.e. upper middle class or higher), while a large proportion of their income is not "earned" (and therefore incurs no social security tax), they usually have a fairly significant amount of "earned" income, on which they do pay social security tax. However, the amount of "earned" income that is subject to social security tax is capped at a fairly small number (in the low $100k's per year), so the capped amount of social security tax they pay on their total income (or even their "earned" income) becomes a very small percentage indeed.

It really all depends as people have come about their wealth in various ways. While many high earners accumulate wealth such that their passive income from their accumulated savings/investments can become a large portion of their total income, many other individuals come about their wealth is ways that did not include ever generating a large amount of income from their wages (main process of this is through inheriting wealth).

 

Then there are the individuals that through favorable tax laws are able to receive the profits of their labor in ways that are not taxed as income but instead as a capital gain. The most commonly mentioned of these are 'hedgefund managers' who in exchange for their work of running the fund receive a share of the funds profits which are then subject to capital gains taxes instead of income taxes. Their ability to have their work treated as a capital asset instead of labor leads to even greater tax loopholes such as one I recently encountered in my work. A fund company has created a new fund for which they have not yet started raising money. The manager of the fund as one of the partners in the company has an interest in the future profits of that fund. The manager assigned a portion of that interest in the future profits of the fund into an irrevocable dynasty trust for his descendents. The value of that interest for purposes of this gift to his kids and all his unborn grandchildren and great children, $0. Since they have yet to take this fund to the market and raise money, these future profits are all hypothetical and may never materialize. So no current value. Fund manager will now do what most of would consider to be work in raising money to go into the fund, investing that money and earning a profit for his client. His compensation for that work will not be taxable income to him, but will be capital gains that pass with no gift or estate taxes to his descendents.

But yes, tell me again how much undocumented immigrants cost us....

[viking8x6]

54 minutes ago, Rillion said:

...other individuals come about their wealth is ways that did not include ever generating a large amount of income from their wages ...

...The most commonly mentioned of these are 'hedgefund managers' who in exchange for their work of running the fund receive a share of the funds profits ...

Absolutely true. My point was that most of the individuals in these categories actually do have some official employment, and that usually involves a salary. Those salaries are not small, even if the actual amounts money they receive in other ways are much much larger.

54 minutes ago, Rillion said:

But yes, tell me again how much undocumented immigrants cost us....

If you read my previous post, you'd have noticed that I'm very much of the opinion that immigrants, documented or otherwise, do not cost "us" substantially more than any other citizens - in fact, my belief is that they usually cost less.

[BootmanLA]

6 hours ago, viking8x6 said:

I'm dubious about this logic.  My understanding is a bit different: If people are actually "rich" (i.e. upper middle class or higher), while a large proportion of their income is not "earned" (and therefore incurs no social security tax), they usually have a fairly significant amount of "earned" income, on which they do pay social security tax. However, the amount of "earned" income that is subject to social security tax is capped at a fairly small number (in the low $100k's per year), so the capped amount of social security tax they pay on their total income (or even their "earned" income) becomes a very small percentage indeed.

You'd be surprised. Quite a few rich people have zero earned income, because 100% of their money comes from investments and other "non-earned" sources. Sure, some of them also have a "job" for which they receive a "salary", but even then, as you note, it's capped for social security tax purposes. Medicare tax isn't capped, but then that's why the really rich get stock options and not so much cash when they do "work".

Even worse, people with ginormous assets (think the Musk Rat) don't have to even pay capital gains tax to access use of their assets. If you or I had, say, $500,000 in stock, and we wanted to start taking out $50,000 a year as living funds, we'd actually have to sell $50K worth of stock, and pay taxes on whatever gains we have.

The really, really rich can go to the bank and instead borrow, say, $2 million against their billion dollars in assets, assigning a tiny fraction of those assets essentially as collateral for the loan, which never actually gets paid back, and for which they get a very favorable interest rate. They can then spend that $2 million on food and hotels and whatever, none of it counting as income because it's money they borrowed from their own wealth (which they also accumulate without paying taxes on the gains because they never sell).

When the really really rich person dies, there's this multi-million dollar debt that gets paid out of the estate before it's distributed to the heirs, so there's no tax on the gain on whatever had to be sold to pay the debt. Then the heirs inherit the remainder with a basis in the investments at whatever it was worth the day the really really rich guy died. And then lather, rinse, repeat.